originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
so because our brain is programed to see patterns and have bias that means we dont have free will. determinism is f#$cking stupid.

the other side of the free will coin is infinite reduction. we are so small that the entire history of the earth from birth to death is a pixel in the
jupiter-sized monitor that is the milky way galaxy. which in its turn is a pixel in an even bigger monitor. which is an unfortunate metaphor, because
now it sounds like im calling the universe a computer. im not, because that would be, to use your terminology, f#$cking stupid. point being, our free
will is the brighter half of being hyper intelligent microbes. we are not flying, we are falling gracefully. the fabric of existence doesnt care about
your existential crisis, and you may still be wringing your hands over the futility of it all when that futility stops your heart of old age.

There is a definite freedom of choice granted to us, however individually we are still conditioned to think and act in a way that appears 'natural' to
oneself, depending on our experiences and character makeup... I have no doubt that everyday on Earth people do and say things that are 'out of
character', but the consequences of our actions often dictate how far 'off course' we are willing to push ourselves...

Hahaha You're a regular comedian aren't You...have fun NOT answering what I continuosly ask, including the post You lifted this quote from - classic
diversion - it's obvious You have no idea what the 'research' in the OP is saying subtextually and unbeknownst to themselves - swallow the line, I
could really care less...and it might be You that blusters into the next non-free will guff thread, accusing me of going on and on and on - all the
while, NOT answering the one question I keep asking...my friend, obviousness is obvious...

all I'm asking is for an explanation of how the 'research' conducted by folk claiming to have 'discovered' that free will 'may', 'perhaps',
'seemingly' does not exist - can be immune from its own findings...a very simple question...

The truth that we don't have free-will...? Science hasn't been able to substantiate whether or not free-will exists or not so I don't even subscribe
to that concept. As I said to Dark Ghost,I find myself agreeing more with soft-determinism as we really are biological automatons much like most if
not all life is..

This leaves us with a problem. One logical solution is to divorce the concepts of responsibility and free will. You are responsible for whatever you
do, whether or not you ‘meant’ to do it.

There's no point in divorcing the concepts when they were never conjoined...You can still have free will and lack accountability. What I essentially
am saying is that determinism deliberately removes that accountability by placing too much merit on the external and internal forces for the causality
of most criminal and harmful behaviors in society.
It actually incentivizes more criminal behavior similar to how mental illness has been the key to many mass shooters and serial killers given lighter
sentences or being sent to a psyche ward.

I even suggested a solution to this conundrum,make good use of Operant conditioning. Harsher penalties for those who plea determinism after committing
a crime. Increase pay or bonuses to actively contributing members of society to reward people for their contributions. Motive and benefit of a suspect
wouldn't increase accountability at all,much of the blame would be shifted to the other variables depending on the crime;e.g Child hood,family
relations,friendships,romantic relationships,associates,diet,medical history and etc..

This is what Gurdjieff has always been stressing on. There is nothing a man (in his ordinary state) can do. Everything HAPPENS to him. He has no free
will in his ordinary state. All his desires, actions etc stem from outer stimuli or are based on pre recorded responses in the brain.

Man is a machine. All his deeds, actions, words, thoughts, feelings, convictions, opinions, and habits are the results of external influences,
external impressions. Out of himself a man cant produce a single action. Everything he says, does, thinks, feels - all this happens. Man cannot
discover anything, invent anything. It all happens. To establish this fact for oneself, to understand it, to be convinced of its truth, means getting
rid of a thousand illusions about man, about his being creative, and being consciously organizing his own life and so on. There is nothing of this
kind. Everything happens - popular movements, wars, revolutions, changes of government, all this happens. And it happens in the exactly same way as
everything happens in the life of the individual man. Man is born, lives, dies, builds houses, writes books, not as he wants to but as it happens.
Everything happens. Man does not love, hate, desire - all this happens. But no one will ever believe you if you tell him he can do nothing. This is
the most offensive and the most unpleasant thing you can tell people. IT IS PARTICULARLY UNPLEASANT AND OFFENSIVE BECAUSE IT IS THE TRUTH AND NOBODY
WANTS TO HEAR THE TRUTH. It is one thing to understand w/ the mind and another thing to feel it w/ one's whole mass, to be really convinced that it is
so and never forget it. (G.I. Gurdjieff, as recorded by P. D. Ouspensky)

But, you see, all I'm asking is for (short of discussing the 'research' with the researchers) is an explanation of how the 'research' conducted by
folk claiming to have 'discovered' that free will 'may', 'perhaps', 'seemingly' does not exist - can be immune from its own findings...a very simple
question...

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who think they know everything and those who know they don't. The former frequently use words such
as "obviously, always, certainly" whereas the latter frequently use words such as "maybe, perhaps, seemingly."

all I'm asking is for an explanation of how the 'research' conducted by folk claiming to have 'discovered' that free will 'may', 'perhaps',
'seemingly' does not exist - can be immune from its own findings...a very simple question...

A very simple answer: it isn’t.

Do you think that is an objection to the premise?

No...it's not an objection at all - it is a confirmation of exactly what I have been saying, and the mantra most non-free willers love to sing on cue
- that their opinions on the conclusions reached are also predestined (obviously) and cannot be taken seriously...under the guise of all things
sciencey or not...it's called confirmation bias...the conclusions of these designed experiments are Not immune from their own conclusions...call that
what you will - I did not design the experiment, or interpret the conclusions - humans, concluding what their designed experiment means/t, did.
Adherents to its conclusion are exhibiting the same bias in accepting its conclusion...I reject it...and I am free to deny that ignorance...

But, you see, all I'm asking is for (short of discussing the 'research' with the researchers) is an explanation of how the 'research' conducted by
folk claiming to have 'discovered' that free will 'may', 'perhaps', 'seemingly' does not exist - can be immune from its own findings...a very simple
question...

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who think they know everything and those who know they don't. The former frequently use words such
as "obviously, always, certainly" whereas the latter frequently use words such as "maybe, perhaps, seemingly."

A few seconds.... so how many of you don't stop to chew on things for more than a few seconds before acting... Did they just test a bunch of
extraverts who act then process or something?

This seems quite idiotic, but hey... if people fall for this that's on them. Maybe they should have stopped to think about it for more than a few
seconds.

My god! I took more than a few seconds to read that article, it's fail after fail after fail! I could not stop shaking my head. Guy should feel
ashamed for writing that, and yet I fear he has no clue how many leaps in logic he took. So sad.

The truth that we don't have free-will...? Science hasn't been able to substantiate whether or not free-will exists or not so I don't even subscribe
to that concept. As I said to Dark Ghost,I find myself agreeing more with soft-determinism as we really are biological automatons much like most if
not all life is..

This leaves us with a problem. One logical solution is to divorce the concepts of responsibility and free will. You are responsible for whatever you
do, whether or not you ‘meant’ to do it.

There's no point in divorcing the concepts when they were never conjoined...You can still have free will and lack accountability. What I essentially
am saying is that determinism deliberately removes that accountability by placing too much merit on the external and internal forces for the causality
of most criminal and harmful behaviors in society.
It actually incentivizes more criminal behavior similar to how mental illness has been the key to many mass shooters and serial killers given lighter
sentences or being sent to a psyche ward.

I even suggested a solution to this conundrum,make good use of Operant conditioning. Harsher penalties for those who plea determinism after committing
a crime. Increase pay or bonuses to actively contributing members of society to reward people for their contributions. Motive and benefit of a suspect
wouldn't increase accountability at all,much of the blame would be shifted to the other variables depending on the crime;e.g Child hood,family
relations,friendships,romantic relationships,associates,diet,medical history and etc..

It will be the graceful balancing act of proposals like these, that go towards 'solving' the real-life issues of the ethical conundrums either
way...the symbiosis of polarised positions - as in nature...

If you believe that this existence is the only form of existence, then what you say makes sense. I personally believe there may be more to the overall
workings of the universe than this physical existence. Do I have proof? No. But I have no more proof that there is a non-physical existence than you
do that Free Will exists. We are shaped by our past experiences, some of which cannot be accurately relayed to others.

I dont believe anything, I see the framework of actual reality as well as the billions upon billions of egoist personalities living trope realities...
ones that dip from one extreme to the other without balance, thinking that up will not follow down or that they are one and the same of the same
condition? There arises circumstances to add to that trope covering up the frame work of reality even more... and adding to the personal tropes only
increases baggage and suffering and the perpetuation of it on themselves and everyone one else attached to ego tropes of an experiencing self deluded
thinking no one else could have any of these experiences... but due to having these fragments of an experience of something but not total experience
of that something and am really a vast conglomerate of random experiences incomplete... I demand that a reality and call that a self.... 7 billionish
people doing this... 7 billionish people... failing to see the framework vs the trope.

Of course that sounds cold and mechanical, but you cannot escape the tropes into the framework without having been there and know the pains suffering
and struggles oh so well, trope after trope life after life until ding! Your goose is cooked and reality cannot be escaped from... that runs counter
and opposite of the ones that cannot escape from their trope realities of impermanence and suffering life after life, it becomes enimation after
enimation without suffering extremes, or being lost in tropes, though one can live and experience just the same, its just no attachment to any past,
no plan for any future as reality just unfolds from all the tropes people constantly build on the actual framework of reality.

Nothing to believe, it just is define it and believe it if you must but that wont be reality just more trope in the pile needing to be sorted out to
wake up.

anyway i dont get how me not understanding someone has any corelation to what i think/believe. determinism makes no sense. unlike alot of people i
think the universe has a purpose. with the deterministic model you might as well not even simulate the universe.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.